ICTworks

The global humanitarian system has been jolted by a sudden and drastic move: the US Secretary of State has frozen virtually all foreign aid and ordered a review of every program, based on the new Administration’s executive order on foreign aid.

USAID is now issuing Stop Work orders for all contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements, triggering a 60 to 90-day review period of profound uncertainty.

This freeze will unleash a humanitarian catastrophe.

This is not hyperbole.

I am Thomas Byrnes and my conclusion is based on analyzing the best available data from the United Nations’ Financial Tracking Service, the most comprehensive source of global humanitarian funding information.

The immediate impact of this freeze will be devastatingly real, crippling the ability of humanitarian agencies to maintain operations, retain staff, and deliver life-saving assistance to the most vulnerable. This is even with vaguely defined exceptions to keep aid flowing for emergency food assistance and foreign military financing to Israel and Egypt.

This post will:

• Examine the data, expose the hidden vulnerabilities within the aid system, and illuminate why these next 90 days are disastrous for the world’s most vulnerable populations.
• Delve into the reliance of both major and smaller organizations on USAID funding and how this freeze will impact them.
• Consider the immediate impact of the foreign assistance funding freeze, and look at what may happen beyond this 90 day period.
• Define a call to action and offer solutions to this looming crisis.
• Ask you what impacts you’re seeing and your ideas for recovery.

What is FTS and What Does Show?

The Financial Tracking Service (FTS) is a global, online database managed by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. It provides a near real-time overview of humanitarian funding needs and contributions from governments, donors, UN agencies, and NGOs.

While participation is voluntary and the data may not capture every single funding flow, FTS remains the most comprehensive source of publicly available information on humanitarian financing.

It helps improve decision-making and coordination within the sector. As such it offers us the best insight available into the impact of the recent US aid freeze.

USAID Dominance in Humanitarian Aid

The United States has long held the position of the world’s single largest donor to humanitarian aid, a fact clearly illustrated by data from the UN’s Financial Tracking Service (FTS).

In 2024, the US contributed a staggering $13.80 billion to humanitarian efforts globally, representing 43.04% of the total funding tracked by the FTS.

This figure is not only immense in absolute terms but also dwarfs the contributions of other major donors. In fact, as detailed in FTS data, US contributions in 2024 were greater than the combined contributions of the next ten largest donors. This data is presented in the table below:

This overwhelming dominance of US funding has created a global humanitarian ecosystem that is heavily reliant on a single source. While the US’s generosity has undoubtedly saved countless lives and alleviated immense suffering, it has also created a precarious situation.

The humanitarian sector’s dependence on a single actor makes it extremely vulnerable to shifts in US political priorities and domestic policy – as we are seeing now.

The executive order to freeze virtually all US foreign aid, therefore, is not merely a budget adjustment; it is a seismic event that threatens to destabilize the entire humanitarian system. The sudden stop-work order on USAID contracts and grants effectively severs a vital lifeline, leaving organizations scrambling and exposing the fragility of a system built on this substantial, yet now uncertain, foundation.

Vague Emergency Food Assistance Waiver

The order includes a waiver for emergency food assistance, but this provision is shrouded in ambiguity. The lack of clear definitions and guidelines creates more questions than answers. Here are two key questions:

1. What constitutes “emergency food assistance”?

The FTS data shows that food security received $8.20 billion in 2024, making it the most funded sector. However, this category encompasses a wide range of activities, from direct food distribution to agricultural support and livelihood programs. It remains unclear which of these activities will be covered under the waiver.

2. Which countries will be funded?

The FTS report highlights that the Middle East and Northern Africa (MENA) region receives the most funding, while Latin America and the Caribbean receive the least. Will the waiver be applied equitably across all regions in need, or will it be used to prioritize certain countries based on US foreign policy interests? As noted above, Israel and Egypt are exempt from this new policy.

USAID Funding Dependency

The 2024 FTS data paints a stark picture: a humanitarian ecosystem deeply intertwined with and heavily reliant on US financial support, particularly from USAID.

This vital lifeline is now severed by the recent funding freeze, threatening the operational capacity of organizations across the board and exposing the fragility of a system built on this dependency. Full details can be found in these two FTS extracted excel files Global Humanitarian Donors and USAID Recipients.

UN Agencies: Facing a Crippling Blow

Major UN agencies, the cornerstones of the global humanitarian response, are facing a crippling blow. Their reliance on USAID, as revealed by the FTS data, is staggering:

• World Food Programme (WFP): 54% of total funding from USAID ($4.65 billion).
• UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR): 54% of total funding from USAID ($1.96 billion).
• UN Population Fund (UNFPA): 41% of total funding from USAID ($188.2 million).
• United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF): 36% of total funding from USAID ($1.02 billion).
• Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): 14% of total funding from USAID ($63.1 million).

These agencies, responsible for coordinating and implementing large-scale relief efforts, will be forced to make drastic cuts to core programs. The freeze will have a huge impact on these organizations’ ability to distribute aid, and maintain services.

Millions of vulnerable people who depend on these UN agencies for food, shelter, healthcare, and other essential aid will bear the brunt of this freeze.

International NGOs: A Domino Effect Begins

Beyond the UN, numerous international NGOs face a precarious future. The freeze jeopardizes their ability to operate effectively. Many of these organizations also serve as subcontractors for UN agencies. This will only exacerbate the impact of the freeze.

A large number of INGOs are heavily reliant on USAID for their direct funding. The FTS data shows that major organizations will face immediate shortfalls without a quick resumption of aid funding. These organizations will be forced to make agonizing choices about which programs to scale back or terminate entirely, and which staff to lay off.

Here is the percent and amount of USG funding for select organizations:

• International Rescue Committee (39%, $137.5 million)
• International Committee of the Red Cross (32% from USAID)
• Mercy Corps (26%, $41.6 million)
• Save the Children (23%, $93.5 million)
• Danish Refugee Council (20%, $45.2 million)
• Norwegian Refugee Council (12%, $55.8 million)

As UN agencies scale back due to their own budget cuts, they will inevitably reduce subcontracts to INGOs. This creates a domino effect, amplifying the financial strain on these organizations and further restricting their capacity to deliver aid. The lack of direct funding, coupled with a reduction in subcontracts, will severely limit the ability of these organizations to maintain current operations.

Faith-Based Organizations: Also Under Threat

Several faith-based organizations receive substantial funding from USAID. The work done by these organizations is essential, and they are often able to reach communities that other organizations cannot. They have deep roots in communities and a strong network of local partners, enabling them to deliver culturally sensitive and contextually appropriate aid.

• Catholic Relief Services: Even with a $1.5 billion dollar annual budget, 35% ($520 million) comes from the US government.
• World Vision International: Also has a $1.5 billion dollar annual budget with 20% ($305 million) in USAID cash and non-cash support.
• Other Faith-Based Actors: A multitude of smaller faith-based organizations rely on USAID funding for their humanitarian and development activities, such as: Caritas (18%), Church World Service (93%), Lutheran World Federation (91%), Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (75%), Jesuit Refugee Service (98%).

The US government funding freeze will severely strain their operations and undoubtedly impact their diverse programs. It threatens to dismantle their vital networks and undermine decades of work.

National and Local NGOs: The Unseen Victims

National and local NGOs, often the unsung heroes of frontline humanitarian response, are arguably the most vulnerable to the devastating effects of the US aid freeze.

FTS data shows that National and Local Organizations received 5.59% (around $1.79 Billion) of total humanitarian funding in 2024. However, this figure fails to illustrate that many UN agencies and INGOs operate on a model where they subcontract the implementation of projects to national and local NGOs.

Their critical role in delivering aid directly to communities makes them indispensable. However, as UN agencies and INGOs face budget cuts, they will inevitably reduce subcontracts to national and local NGOs – the organizations with the least capacity to adapt to such a sudden loss of funding.

The freeze threatens to cripple these organizations, not just through direct funding cuts but also through a less visible yet equally damaging “subcontracting squeeze.”

How to Keep the Lights On?

It’s crucial to understand that funding for country programs does more than just deliver direct aid. It also covers essential regional and headquarters (HQ) administrative costs. These include:

Staff salaries: Program funding pays the salaries of not just field staff but also the crucial administrative, logistical, and technical staff at regional and HQ levels who are essential for program implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. A sudden stop in funding directly impacts an organization’s ability to make payroll, potentially leading to layoffs and a loss of vital expertise.

Operational costs: Rent for offices, utilities, IT infrastructure, communications, and travel – all these essential operational costs are often covered by program funding. Without this funding, agencies may be forced to close offices, curtail travel, and reduce their operational capacity.

Financial management: Robust financial management systems, audits, and compliance with donor requirements are essential for maintaining accountability and transparency. These functions are often supported by administrative overhead built into program budgets.

Impact of 90 Days of USAID Disruption

During the first 90 days of the aid freeze, we can anticipate a cascade of negative consequences, including severe impacts on agencies’ ability to operate and retain staff:

Immediate operational paralysis

Agencies will be forced to halt or significantly scale back programs, even those related to food assistance, while they await clarification on the waiver and scramble to find alternative funding sources. This will create a dangerous gap in service provision.

People will die

When programs stop, people will die.

• US-funded relief operations in Gaza will have to halt amid the ongoing cease-fire.
• Critical food security programs in Sudan will stop, precipitating widespread famine.
• Darfur refugees fleeing into Chad, or Afghans in Pakistan, or Rohingya in Bangladesh will find their services cut off.
• Millions of people on PEPFAR-funded antiretroviral treatments will lack critical medicines, risking a resurgence of the virus.

Cash flow crisis and downsizing

The sudden funding cut will trigger a severe cash flow crisis, especially for smaller organizations. The inability to access funds already committed by USAID will create an immediate liquidity problem. This will directly impact their ability to make payroll, leading to potential staff layoffs, reduced working hours, hiring freezes, and a loss of experienced personnel within weeks.

Supply chain breakdown

The disruption to funding will ripple through complex humanitarian supply chains, causing delays and shortages of essential goods like food, medicine, shelter materials, and hygiene kits. I’ve heard this is already happening with critical food aid. Organizations are trying to shift from Multi-Purpose Cash (MPC) to improve food security to in-kind food disbursements – when that’s never been done in those countries.

Erosion of trust and partnerships

The abrupt and unilateral nature of the freeze will damage trust between the US government, humanitarian agencies, and the communities they serve. This will complicate coordination and hinder effective crisis response.

Undermining of localisation goals

The USAID funding freeze delivers a disproportionate blow to local NGOs, who are often best positioned to understand and address community needs. While the FTS reports that only 5.59% ($1.79 Billion) of total 2024 humanitarian funding went to national and local organizations, this figure underrepresents their crucial role in last-mile delivery.

The freeze jeopardizes their already limited funding, threatening their ability to operate. The data provided shows that many rely on US funding, and even those who do not will be impacted by the sudden reduction in available resources. This will likely lead to closures, staff layoffs, and a shrinking capacity to respond to crises.

The Stop Work order undermines USAID’s localization efforts, which aim to empower local actors and ensure sustainable, culturally relevant aid delivery. The freeze ultimately weakens the humanitarian system’s responsiveness and effectiveness.

After 90 Days: A Humanitarian Catastrophe

If the aid freeze continues beyond the initial 90-day period, the consequences will be even more severe:

Increased mortality and suffering: Reduced access to food, healthcare, water, sanitation, and other essential services will inevitably lead to increased illness, malnutrition, and death, particularly among vulnerable groups like children, pregnant women, and the elderly.

Exacerbation of existing crises: The FTS data highlights ongoing crises in the Middle East and Northern Africa, and Southern and Eastern Africa. The aid freeze will worsen these crises, potentially leading to increased displacement, instability, and conflict.

Reversal of development gains: Decades of progress on poverty reduction, education, and health could be undone, particularly in countries heavily reliant on US aid. This will be similar to the backtracking we saw during COVID-19 – or potentially even worse.

Politicization of USAID: The freeze sets a dangerous precedent for tying humanitarian assistance to political agendas, undermining the principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence. Funding to Israel and Egypt will not be impacted by this freeze, raising concerns about the politicization of aid decisions.

A Call for Urgent Action

The US aid freeze is a self-inflicted wound on the global humanitarian system. The first 90 days are critical. Without swift and decisive action to address the issues outlined above, the world will witness a humanitarian catastrophe of unprecedented proportions.

The US government must take the following actions to regain humanitarian aid effectiveness and start to rebuild trust with the sector as a whole.

1. Immediately clarify waivers

Provide detailed definitions, eligibility criteria, and application procedures to enable agencies to resume critical operations. This clarification must address which organizations and which types of food security programs will be considered under the waiver.

2. Expedite funding reviews

Minimize disruption to life-saving programs by swiftly determining which projects can continue. This review must consider the impact on essential administrative and operational costs covered by program funding.

3. Engage in transparent dialogue

Understand the on-the-ground realities and collaborate on solutions to mitigate the damage caused by the freeze. This includes recognizing the vital role of program funding in supporting essential administrative infrastructure, including payroll and operational costs.

4. Fully reinstate humanitarian funding

Recognize the vital role of US aid in addressing global crises, upholding humanitarian principles, and countering malign governments. Foreign assistance is not a handout; it is a strategic investment in US global leadership and a more resilient and prosperous world. Both directly serve US national interests and demonstrate US credibility to its allies, partners, and the world.

What Can We Do?

The time to act is now, before it’s too late. We must prioritize the needs of the most vulnerable and ensure that humanitarian agencies have the resources they need to continue their life-saving work.

The international community cannot be passive. We must treat this as an emergency equal to those we encounter everyday in our work. We must:

1. Apply pressure to unfreeze funds

Advocate for the restoration of aid based on need, while understanding US internal political dynamics. For example, organizations should be communicating how their programs answer Secretary Rubio’s three questions about USAID’s work:

• Does it make the USA stronger?
• Does it make the USA safer?
• Does it make the USA more prosperous?”

In addition, there are many advocates for foreign assistance funding in Congress. Just look at Senior Lindsey Graham’s interview with Ross Vought, an architect of Project 2025 or read the press release from ranking House members.

2. Increase funding commitments

Other funders, foundations, and donor countries must step up and fill the gap left by the US to ensure that essential humanitarian operations can continue. Especially countries that have historically spent less than 1% of their national budgets on humanitarian assistance.

In the USA, many foundations see the IRS 5% rule as a cap, when it’s actually a floor. The stock market increased their endowments by 25% in 2024. Now is the time for foundations to exponentially increase their funding.

The Bloomberg Foundation is a model to follow. It will fund the US portion of the UN Climate Change Secretariat, covering the 22 percent of its $96.5 million budget previously provided by the US for 2024-2025. This is the second time the Foundation has funded the UNFCCC. It also stepped in during the first Trump administration in 2017.

3. Strengthen local organizations

We need to empower local actors who are best placed to respond to crises in their communities and are often the most vulnerable to funding disruptions. We can build their capacity, fund their growth, and support their impact – with the resumption of the world’s largest donor agency.

What Are You Seeing? Doing?

Smaller versions of this catastrophe have played out before. For example, when the USA pulled out of Afghanistan. That withdrawal was done in 48 hours. However, never has humanitarian funding ended so quickly and on such a large scale.

The result is chaos. Programs are being forced to shut down mid-implementation. Staff are facing job losses and expatriates are being recalled from the field. I’ve heard reports of so many aid workers recalled so quickly in South Sudan, that they have overwhelmed local airline offices. People are struggling to find flights out of Juba right now.

The situation is particularly dire for national and local NGOs, who often lack the resources to absorb such a sudden shock and are most vulnerable to the “subcontracting squeeze” as larger organizations cut back.

• What are you seeing happening in your programs? At your company?
• What is happened to local organizations? To programs offering lifesaving support?

Please tell us in the comments. You can remain anonymous – use a fake name and email address as you tell us what is really happening. Bear witness to this tragedy. The impacts need to be known now.

By Thomas Byrnes, a Humanitarian & Social Protection Consultant